The world changes too fast for some of us

US Postal Service should be saved

Published: Monday, April 1, 2013 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, March 29, 2013 at 2:43 p.m.

I'd like to speak on behalf of the technologically challenged. There is a whole big mess of us 60- to 80-year-olds who know just enough about the Internet and computers to get ourselves into trouble, but not enough to get ourselves out of it.

Thank God we still have telephones with answering machines, paper receipts that don't drift off into cyberspace, and the old, reliable standby: the U.S. Postal Service.

If I wouldn't be mistaken as an escapee from an old folks' home, I'd even suggest that the old-fashioned ways of communicating, like land-line telephones and snail mail, are a First Amendment issue. They help a sizable number of our nation's citizens (with gray hair) to keep abreast with a world that now changes faster than we can.

I'd like to think we have a right to stay in touch with the rest of the world in ways that work for us. Many of us cannot deal with computers that think faster than we do, and cellphones that require a Ph.D. in using your thumbs.

So here's my confession: I'm confused. The more I look into the controversy surrounding the Postal Service and the 2006 law requiring it to pre-fund health care for postal retirees for the next 75 years, the more questions I have for which I can't seem to find answers.

According to an Oct. 24, 2011, article by Lori Ann LaRocco, a CNBC.com producer who has investigated this mess, the Postal Service was on a collision course with bankruptcy if it did not come up with a sizable amount of money to set aside for future health care benefits that its retirees would need in the years ahead.

These costs were calculated over the course of the employees' estimated life span, which could be as long as 70 years. So if a man goes to work for the Postal Service at age 23, the Postal Service would need to set aside enough money to sustain that man's estimated health care costs for the next 47 years.

Actually, in light of the fact that health care costs continue to rise more rapidly than any other sector of our nation's economy, this isn't a bad idea. What I'd like to know is: Why must the Postal Service be on the hook for 75 years of projected health care costs instead of 50?

Another question I haven't seen addressed is: Are there other ways to raise money that would provide the needed cash reserves for future health care without putting such a burden on the Postal Service that it may well go out of business?

The Postal Service is exactly what it has been dubbed: a national treasure. Toying with ways to fix it that have the potential to dismantle it instead are not in our nation's best interest. Surely, there are other ways to address future health care requirements for our nation's postal workers that do not involve such a heavy burden on present revenues that it places the entire Postal Service in jeopardy.

I can think of one easy solution that could be enacted immediately. Raise postage rates by several cents, and allocate that rate increase, and a percentage of future rate increases, to be put aside for postal workers' health care. This would not raise taxes; it would simply raise the cost of postage, making it a voluntary system of payment since it would be paid only by those who choose to use the Postal Service. And it would place the burden of maintaining a health care fund on the Postal Service.

One of the problems is that postal workers are federal employees; therefore their negotiated rights to health care must be honored. Where the rub comes in is when Congress gets involved in the fix. As soon as politicians are involved in fixing something, more often than not, that something gets even more broken than it was.

Why? Because politicians are elected to office by campaigns that must be funded. Modern campaigns are more expensive than any ordinary person can afford. This is where influence buying can come into play. It is not a coincidence that some private delivery services are heavy campaign contributors to both Republican and Democratic Party members.

The obvious question is: Whose campaigns have received the most funding from private delivery corporations? How would those corporations benefit if the current Postal Service went under? More importantly, what would the rest of America lose?

Postal workers have warned us that this is an effort to privatize the Postal Service. The Postal Service as it now stands offers service to everyone, even those living in places where it loses money on delivery in that area. The current system allows for the cost of universal delivery to be spread out across the board to cover the costs of delivering to places where such delivery is not profitable. Many small businesses depend on this reliability.

Perhaps it is time for an oversight committee made up of ordinary citizens to be put in place to oversee the backstage workings of Congress. How else are we to ensure that legislators who must depend on the largesse of giant corporations to fund their campaigns are still working for us?

<p>I'd like to speak on behalf of the technologically challenged. There is a whole big mess of us 60- to 80-year-olds who know just enough about the Internet and computers to get ourselves into trouble, but not enough to get ourselves out of it.</p><p>Thank God we still have telephones with answering machines, paper receipts that don't drift off into cyberspace, and the old, reliable standby: the U.S. Postal Service.</p><p>If I wouldn't be mistaken as an escapee from an old folks' home, I'd even suggest that the old-fashioned ways of communicating, like land-line telephones and snail mail, are a First Amendment issue. They help a sizable number of our nation's citizens (with gray hair) to keep abreast with a world that now changes faster than we can.</p><p>I'd like to think we have a right to stay in touch with the rest of the world in ways that work for us. Many of us cannot deal with computers that think faster than we do, and cellphones that require a Ph.D. in using your thumbs.</p><p>So here's my confession: I'm confused. The more I look into the controversy surrounding the Postal Service and the 2006 law requiring it to pre-fund health care for postal retirees for the next 75 years, the more questions I have for which I can't seem to find answers.</p><p>According to an Oct. 24, 2011, article by Lori Ann LaRocco, a CNBC.com producer who has investigated this mess, the Postal Service was on a collision course with bankruptcy if it did not come up with a sizable amount of money to set aside for future health care benefits that its retirees would need in the years ahead.</p><p>These costs were calculated over the course of the employees' estimated life span, which could be as long as 70 years. So if a man goes to work for the Postal Service at age 23, the Postal Service would need to set aside enough money to sustain that man's estimated health care costs for the next 47 years.</p><p>Actually, in light of the fact that health care costs continue to rise more rapidly than any other sector of our nation's economy, this isn't a bad idea. What I'd like to know is: Why must the Postal Service be on the hook for 75 years of projected health care costs instead of 50?</p><p>Another question I haven't seen addressed is: Are there other ways to raise money that would provide the needed cash reserves for future health care without putting such a burden on the Postal Service that it may well go out of business?</p><p>The Postal Service is exactly what it has been dubbed: a national treasure. Toying with ways to fix it that have the potential to dismantle it instead are not in our nation's best interest. Surely, there are other ways to address future health care requirements for our nation's postal workers that do not involve such a heavy burden on present revenues that it places the entire Postal Service in jeopardy. </p><p>I can think of one easy solution that could be enacted immediately. Raise postage rates by several cents, and allocate that rate increase, and a percentage of future rate increases, to be put aside for postal workers' health care. This would not raise taxes; it would simply raise the cost of postage, making it a voluntary system of payment since it would be paid only by those who choose to use the Postal Service. And it would place the burden of maintaining a health care fund on the Postal Service.</p><p>One of the problems is that postal workers are federal employees; therefore their negotiated rights to health care must be honored. Where the rub comes in is when Congress gets involved in the fix. As soon as politicians are involved in fixing something, more often than not, that something gets even more broken than it was. </p><p>Why? Because politicians are elected to office by campaigns that must be funded. Modern campaigns are more expensive than any ordinary person can afford. This is where influence buying can come into play. It is not a coincidence that some private delivery services are heavy campaign contributors to both Republican and Democratic Party members.</p><p>The obvious question is: Whose campaigns have received the most funding from private delivery corporations? How would those corporations benefit if the current Postal Service went under? More importantly, what would the rest of America lose?</p><p>Postal workers have warned us that this is an effort to privatize the Postal Service. The Postal Service as it now stands offers service to everyone, even those living in places where it loses money on delivery in that area. The current system allows for the cost of universal delivery to be spread out across the board to cover the costs of delivering to places where such delivery is not profitable. Many small businesses depend on this reliability.</p><p>Perhaps it is time for an oversight committee made up of ordinary citizens to be put in place to oversee the backstage workings of Congress. How else are we to ensure that legislators who must depend on the largesse of giant corporations to fund their campaigns are still working for us?</p>